I thought there were only nice people to the north

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:22:30 -0800 (PST), pugetsounddiver@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Dec 10, 6:17 am, JOF <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You'll just have to contain yer glee for at least ten years and see
>> what the judicial system does with him then, huh?
>
>None of this brings me glee, shitbag.
>
>Just more of your desperate projection.
>
>Nothing like the glee it brings you when people commit crimes with
>guns.
>
>> It would be heart
>> warming to learn that he ended up bunking with the behemoth psycho
>> killer brother of one of his victims though.
>
>Heart warming to you, because you are sick in the head.
>
>What would be "right" (I know you don't understand what that means) is
>if he were executed.

You'll get no argument from me. I've said it for years - guys like
this are sociopaths and not worth salvaging, if it were even possible.
Dispose of them without wasting any money or resources on them.

JF

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:41:24 -0500, "Lee Bell"
<pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Rod wrote
>
>> Who would have thought it.
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...ex.htmlClearly a false report of events that never happened. There's no need forpersonal defense in Canada, none at all, just ask John.I suspect that all the female victims are really consorting with criminal USgun nuts. The body parts eaten by the pigs are surely fakes.Lee

"Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes -- would
you like to see them owning guns? I thought you & the other Yes-men
wanted only responsible gun ownership?

Even if a junkie had a gun, would she be able to use it efficiently? I
somehow doubt it.

Anyway, I find it very odd that some of you Merkans take pleasure in
some really terrible tragedies here. That's rather sad. These women
were mothers and daughters, and they are missed by their families.

On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, Mike from Ottawa <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote:

> Even if a junkie had a gun, would she be able to use it efficiently? I
> somehow doubt it.

Of course they'd use it efficiently, either to trade for drugs or to
mug people to buy drugs or to steal drugs. Guns have many uses.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:17:49 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman
<mossman@qnet.com> wrote:

>On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, Mike from Ottawa <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote:
>
>> Even if a junkie had a gun, would she be able to use it efficiently? I
>> somehow doubt it.
>
>Of course they'd use it efficiently, either to trade for drugs or to
>mug people to buy drugs or to steal drugs. Guns have many uses.

True. I suppose the most important thing is that they also have the
right to defend themselves, even if they use it most often for theft.

"Mike from Ottawa" <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote in message
news:oabsl3tuea67a62t1gltuq3dcapevt0578@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:17:49 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman
> <mossman@qnet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, Mike from Ottawa <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Even if a junkie had a gun, would she be able to use it efficiently? I
> >> somehow doubt it.
> >
> >Of course they'd use it efficiently, either to trade for drugs or to
> >mug people to buy drugs or to steal drugs. Guns have many uses.
>
> True. I suppose the most important thing is that they also have the
> right to defend themselves, even if they use it most often for theft.

Do you know of any churches up here in Canuk land that have armed security
guards?

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:07:26 -0500, Mike from Ottawa wrote:

> "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes -- would you
> like to see them owning guns? I thought you & the other Yes-men wanted
> only responsible gun ownership?

And who said that prostitutes were not responsible? Come on now, it *is*
the world's oldest profession, right? Of course, just like there are
stores like Saks Fifth Avenue all the way down to the local quickie mart
[pun-intended], there are prostitutes of the same variety... As we've
always said, "If it flies, floats, or fucks, it's cheaper to rent than to
buy"...

Mike from Ottawa wrote

> "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes . . .

The right to defense does not stop with the victim. It extends to those that
might, if allowed, have protected them too. Nobody suggested arming
elementary, middle or high school students so they could protect themselves,
but it was suggested that just one responsibly and legally armed teacher
might have put a quick stop to the serial killings that occasionally happen
in our schools and have happened in schools around the world. In my country,
we value the lives of all citizens, even junkies and prostitutes. Apparently
they don't count in yours.

The point, however, one that you very obviously chose to ignore, is that the
basis for promoting a disarmed public, according to John, is that there is
no need for personal defense. He doesn't live in a world where the threat of
death or serious injury is a problem. He's clearly and demonstrably wrong.

> Anyway, I find it very odd that some of you Merkans take pleasure in
> some really terrible tragedies here.

No pleasure at all. We Mercans take no pleasure in tragedies anywhere. We
warned you that the problem was escalating. We warned you that it would only
get worse. We warned you that your blind insistance that there is no risk
was not right and that, sooner or later, it would catch up with you. We
advised you then, that, when the stuff hit the fan, it would be your fault
for ignoring all the warnings, all the evidence and all the history that
proves that only those that are willing and prepared to defend their lives,
property and rights, could expect to retain them.

Don't blame us when we point out that we were right and you were wrong.

> These women were mothers and daughters, and they are missed by their
> families.

Yes they were. The next ones, and the next ones will be too. It's about time
you guys got your heads out of the sand and recognized what we've been
saying from the start. You are at risk. Your families, mothers,
grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, children, junkies and prostitutes or
businessmen and housewives are all at risk. Not only can the police not
protect you, it's not even their job to protect you. It's each citizen's job
to protect themselves, their way of life, and those around them. It's a
really good idea to ensure you retain the means to do so when it's your turn
to do your part.

It's even more important to quit trying to deny my right to do the same and
that's what John has been doing for years..

Lee

chilly wrote

> Do you know of any churches up here in Canuk land that have armed security
> guards?

Interesting question. Obviously I don't know the answer as stated.

Here, the answer is yes. Many churches down here, and even more synagogues,
hire police to help with both pedestrian and vehicular traffic control. For
the visibly Jewish people in my area, it seems to be mostly pedestrians.
Apparently their beliefs preclude driving to their religious services. The
uniformed police providing the service are armed. Further, I guarantee that
there are plain clothes policemen that are armed while attending.

Is it really different there?

Lee.

On Dec 10, 8:41 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Rod wrote
>
> > Who would have thought it.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...trial.ap/i...a false report of events that never happened. There's no need forpersonal defense in >Canada, none at all, just ask John.I suspect that all the female victims are really consorting with criminal USgun nuts. The body parts eaten by the pigs are surely >fakes.Lee

Despite yer reading comprehension problems the fact remains that here
in Canada we're still civilized enough not to have to fear for our
safety, if not our very lives, whenever we walk out the door of our
homes. It's odd that wherever I travel in the States I don't get that
sense either, but you guys live there 24/7/365so I'll defer to yer own
opinion of your country and society. If you say it's that bad, I guess
it must be. We obviously have criminals, but in nowhere near the
numbers you must.

So before you start making sweeping (and erroneous) generalizations
about the inherent dangers on the streets of my country perhaps you
should get up here and spend at least a few days. Of course I don't
expect you to match the time I've spent in the States. You'd have to
live here for upwards of three years to do that.

JF

On Dec 11, 1:56 am, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote:
> "Mike from Ottawa" <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote in messagenews:oabsl3tuea67a62t1gltuq3dcapevt0578@4ax .com...
>
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:17:49 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman
> > <moss...@qnet.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, Mike from Ottawa <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote:
>
> > >> Even if a junkie had a gun, would she be able to use it efficiently? I
> > >> somehow doubt it.
>
> > >Of course they'd use it efficiently, either to trade for drugs or to
> > >mug people to buy drugs or to steal drugs. Guns have many uses.
>
> > True. I suppose the most important thing is that they also have the
> > right to defend themselves, even if they use it most often for theft.
>
> Do you know of any churches up here in Canuk land that have armed security
> guards?

I know a minister who hunts and fishes. Does that count?